Pajama Pundits

If a plan to tax Rude, Crude, and Socially Unacceptable behavior is to be workable, there should be a simple test to determine who should be taxed and who might qualify as exempt.

I propose this form: Application for Waiver of Rude, Crude, and Socially Unacceptable Status.

The simple part is that everyone is taxable, until the waiver is applied for, and their status as Socially Acceptable has been formally approved.

Some time ago, while riding a motorcycle, a cyber friend of mine was hit by an uninsured, unlicensed driver who ran a red light. My friend was seriously injured. And, he was not wearing a helmet.

It might be that a helmet would have prevented some of the damage done to his head. And, it might not. A helmet might have added enough bulk for his head to have become stuck, immobilized, under the vehicle, making a spinal cord injury more likely. It could also have prevented skull fractures and 'penetrating' wounds that perhaps allowed fluid an escape route instead of 'drowning' brain cells.

My friend is lucky. And tough, too. He could have easily become what is so often referred to as a "burden" on the system. In fact, some might say that the treatment he got that allows us the continued pleasure of his company contributed to the "burden." The refrain is, "Dammit, he should have been wearing a helmet! There oughtta be a law!"

Well, there were laws. Laws that say a driver must have a license, must carry insurance, and must stop at red lights. Just how effective are laws as the cause of responsible behavior?

Seems to me those who would like to legislate or mandate specific monetary penalties on specific behaviors (taxes, or higher insurance premiums, for example) are doing some fancy dancing around some fundamental questions: What is a life worth? What is the quality of one's life worth? What is the value of a life-saving medical technique? Are such techniques worth their cost? Is every life worth saving? If not, how is that decision to be made... on the possible quality of that particular life? Who defines quality? Unfortunately, the late Ms. Schiavo's case only stepped up the tempo of the dance, instead of prompting an intermission for serious reflection.

Helmets - worn, or not worn - are a small factor compared to the increased ability of the medical profession to save lives in increasing the cost of medical care. If it's money we want to save, CPR and mechanical respiration should be primary targets for banning.

In 1984, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders, wrote that 50% of patients with severe head injuries survived at that time, up from 10% in the early 60s. They attributed this to modern emergency-room, surgical, and intensive-care treatment. Further progress in fine-tuning those skills has been made since then in all three areas, but whether the impact has been as dramatic, I do not know.

Since the early 80s, there has been a boom in the creation of institutions for the rehabilitation of some folks with head injuries, and for the life-long care of some others. Organizations devoted solely to the support of brain injured patients and their families have come about to fill a need that wasn't there 40 years ago.

Somebody's got to pay for this, because the individual that retains their earning capacity after a severe head injury is fairly rare, and few people have enough insurance to cover a lifetime of care. If we, as a society, do not want to pay for the results of increasingly effective medical technology, either through increased medical insurance costs for everyone, government programs (SSDI, Medicaid, etc.), what are the alternatives?

There isn't always a deep pocket standing around waiting to be sued, unless we do decide we'll blame the car manufacturer for the driver's folly. The tobacco and gun suits seem to have us headed in the direction of "one step removed" blame, but what will be the end result of emptying all the deep pockets?

In deciding whether helmets should be required by motorcyclists, if one uses purely financial reasoning, there's little real evidence to support any massive effort to that end. Most head injuries are sustained by passengers and drivers of cars and trucks, under conditions where a helmet would do little good. Helmets do not prevent contrecoup injuries, for example. And I haven't heard anyone suggesting helmets for everyday wear, everywhere... yet. Perhaps the delay is in waiting for a model that will monitor fat and sugar intake throughout the day, as well?

Helmets are best at preventing the most treatable, least costly injuries, and at protecting the face from cosmetic injuries. They are worthwhile and I am thrilled that my husband chooses to wear one when he rides. However, we both understand that it isn't going to prevent all head injuries, it isn't going to protect his arms and legs, and it isn't going to make those he shares the highway with better drivers.

When the cost of treatment for something that can be blamed on a behavior, a habit, a choice... can be put forth as a reason for controlling that behavior by those who don't like that particular behavior, it's far too tempting to overlook the fact that the monetary cost is caused by the ever-present availability of increased medical technology... technology that everyone wants available when they need it, regardless of why.

Imagine walking up to a total stranger on the street and saying, "I'd prefer that you not engage in any risky behavior, but if you do - wear a helmet - because if you get hurt, it might cost me money somewhere down the line."

It's rather handy for "them" to push for increased premiums for motorcyclists and gunowners and higher taxes on tobacco and fast food, since they can then fund the medical care (or teachers' salaries, in the case of Louisiana) for "everyone."

But I'm not convinced the impetus for such punishment for non-criminal behavior is wholly monetary. I think it has more to do with the simple desire of some to control the behaviors of others. Perhaps they must have conformity to feel comfortable. It is something I do not understand, but they seem to be the same people who attempt to impose "tolerance" by being intolerant.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just go ahead and pass a "Rude, Crude, and Socially Unacceptable" tax? Perhaps insurance companies could tack on an "unsophisticated surcharge?" It would certainly be more honest... and even more honest to go ahead and call it a "redneck" tax or surcharge.

If you'd asked me yesterday where the final battle of the War of 1812 was fought, I'd have confidently answered, "New Orleans."

Not so. The last battle came five days later and more than two weeks after the war was officially over:

Final battle of War of 1812 fought at Point Peter

On Jan. 13, 1815, close to 600 British troops attacked Point Peter, overwhelming its 130 soldiers. The British seized St. Marys, looted jewelry and fine China from its residents, and burned the fort. It was never used again as a military outpost.

The fort was burned down by British troops and its remains had been buried until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required an archaeological survey by developers of Cumberland Harbour, a 1,014-acre waterfront subdivision being built on the site. Only a state historical marker, placed on the site in 1953, pointed out the fort's location.

"A few historians knew about this. But this event, which is really significant in the War of 1812, is mostly forgotten to the public," said Scott Butler, who led the excavation for the Atlanta archaeology firm Brockington and Associates. "We're trying to change that."

The areas examined were the barracks, latrine, and well. Over 67,000 artifacts were found, and at this particular moment, I'm not the least interested in learning more about the ones found in the latrine. Maybe after breakfast.

Dedicated to the Inner Dork we try so hard to hide... unsuccessfully.

Uncategorically Dorky

Give me spirit fingers dammit!! presents HK Bridal Special: Chapter 5 - have your cake and throw up on it! The last photo is the epitome of wedded dorkiness.

Point Five tries Friday Night Cat Blogging - My dad would like this post, and that's all the qualification for dorky it needs. Have you thought of signing up for Remedial Cat Blogging 101?

mad anthony discusses The strangest hip-hop diss ever... - obviously should have been subtitled "When Dorks Diss"

Trivial Dorks

Musings from Brian J. Noggle gives away a Free Trivia Answer - so profoundly dorky, I wept.

Willisms - Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 50 - Will says, "one of the worse trivia tidbits of the day I've ever
had." No disagreement here. Paris Hilton is number 3 and 27? You really were running short on material, eh?

Old Movie Dorks
(you decide whether "old" is
modifying "movie" or "dork")

Classical Values was Liveblogging Friday the 13th nostalgia - Eric says "I don't know what possessed me to "Live
blog" a review of a movie from 1977, but that's what I did!" Possessed... yeah, that's a really good excuse. Now I know things about a certain movie that I never wanted to know.

File It Under - Hollywood is Stupid - yes, only a dork would worry about when midnight is.

Star Wars Dorks
(isn't that redundant? --ed.
Why, yes it is.)

Multiple Mentality - Star Wars Mania - "At last the third and final piece of the prequel trilogy has arrived. Aren’t you excited? Frankly, I’m not." But... you will go see it anyway, won't you?

Assumption of Command - Star Wars: Revenge of the Mustang 23 - waxes nostalgic, as only a Star Wars dork can, about Episode I.

Bored with Blogging Dorks
(who want us to believe they actually
have a life and are busy. Ha!)

Practical Penumbra tries to appease with Second Place wins two weeks in Buffalo.... and some lame excuse about scanners not working.

CrankyBeach - More Road Trip Pics - Trying to convince us you've put off posting pics for 7 weeks because your boss nearly died? Slightly more original (but no more convincing) than my standard Great Aunt Gertrude is on her deathbed excuse..., but not by much.

Technogypsy - Hectic - Pathetic attempt to start a temp war... 108. warm. right....

Dick Dorks

Pirate's Cove - The Penis Post - The pirate says, "My only excuse is that I have taken up bike riding." If that's what caused that post... keep me far, far away from a bicycle.

Interested Participant - Toyota Prius Has Stalling Problem - okay, so classifying this as "priuspism" is a bit of a stretch...

Link-Whoring, Excuse-Making,
Shamelessly Self-Promoting Dorks
(my favorite kind!)

Aaron's cc: - Prole Prattle II - A Toast to Huffington's Toast - I'm considering the proper beverage to toast this with... the more I hear about Huffington, the more attractive hemlock becomes.

Growing Old Disgracefully - Slowly but surely - Excuses are not what we want to hear, ya hear? Elaborating on the painful part would have been appreciated. We like pain...

My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Because I am shameless - Yes, you are shameless. But I'm so grateful you showered.

PAINFULLY Dorky

KADNINE is Blogging through a straw for now - since you've already punched that hole in your lip, you can wear some kewl lip jewelry.

Dorks Who Blog About Dorks

Conservative Cat - Notes from Ferdy - Reflections on Spam, #5 - now I know where to go for my toasting needs...

Rambling's Journal - Howard "YARRRRGH" Dean insists Osama Bin Laden wasn't responsible for 9/11 - yeah, we know Screaming Howard corrected himself... but no Deanism shall ever go unpunished!

Dorks putting the
"Pun" in Punditry

WuzzaDem - A Rather Fond Farewell - Yes, he tried for style over substance...

And... saving the dorkiest for last:

King of Dorks

Blog d' Elisson with primetime DORKS "R" US - thoroughly humiliating. That's you flashing the peace sign, isn't it?

The Carnival of the Recipes #40 is up at Curmudgeonry.

I've sort of outgrown the desire to post "Yeah, me too!" in response to individual stupidity like Ms. Nooyi's speech to Columbia MBAs, but this time, I have a few things I'd like to say.

About a boycott of PepsiCo, I have to go along with Big Dog:

...if I stopped buying stuff from every company that was run by or contained some idiot who said stuff I disagreed with or that was just plain stupid, I'd be hand-making everything.

Besides, PepsiCo wouldn't miss me. I fry chicken better than KFC and their gravy sucks, we seldom buy chips, I grew up in SW Colorado and Taco Bell's "flavor" of Mexican food doesn't appeal to me, we order pizza about once a year, and I brew my own caffeine.

That being said, when I do face spending money for something PepsiCo sells, I'll probably remember the speech. If there's a reasonable alternative available, and there likely will be, I'll probably choose the non-PepsiCo brand.

Another point I'd like to make is that Ms. Nooyi showed a remarkable lack of cultural understanding and sensitivity toward the U.S. and the rest of the world with her analogy of the hand and it's five fingers. To do so while encouraging Americans not to behave boorishly when on business abroad was... amazing.

Hopefully, Bill Clinton's commencement address to the Columbia MBAs will be an uplifting and enjoyable experience for them. I don't think he could fail to make it so. No matter what you think of his politics, his ability to deliver a speech well is seldom questioned.

As Donald Sensing put it, bias aside it was a lousy speech. However, I think it's more useful to compare Ms. Nooyi with her contemporaries in the business and graduation speech-making world, than with General MacArthur. We are not then left with the idea that things have regressed quite so badly in either field over the past 40 years.

This time last year, I was the proud Mama at two commencement ceremonies, and both speeches were inspiring and better than I anticipated them being. More importantly, neither made me angry and I think Ms. Nooyi's would have done just that.

One happened to also be to MBAs, these from the University of Texas McCombs School of Business. There, Herb Kelleher, the founder and chairman of Southwest Airlines, wasn't quite as funny as Jon Stewart had been the week before at The College of William and Mary, but he had his moments.

Though Kelleher broke the rule about signaling the end of his speech, his speech was inspiring, and informative. His deep, rumbling, voice and elegantly secure stage presence would probably have inspired if he'd chosen to recite Jabberwocky. Read his remarks here.

Jon Stewart, on the other hand, presented an entirely different image. He wore the elegant W&M doctoral robe open over a t-shirt and jeans with sneakers, inspiring jealousy, if anything, from the W&M grads who had to keep theirs zipped.

I was a little concerned that he'd get political in his remarks, and he did. I was also not that thrilled that a celebrity, a comedian, for pete's sake, was going to metaphorically send them on their way. But he expressed his distress with the current political situation with grace, completely lacking in any kind of anti-Americanism and offered an inspiring goal and plan for life. You can read the whole thing here for all the humor, but here's the inspiring part, where he too breaks the rule about signaling the end of the talk:

College is something you complete. Life is something you experience. So don’t worry about your grade, or the results or success. Success is defined in myriad ways, and you will find it, and people will no longer be grading you, but it will come from your own internal sense of decency which I imagine, after going through the program here, is quite strong…although I’m sure downloading illegal files…but, nah, that’s a different story.

Love what you do. Get good at it. Competence is a rare commodity in this day and age. And let the chips fall where they may.

And the last thing I want to address is the idea that somehow this new generation is not as prepared for the sacrifice and the tenacity that will be needed in the difficult times ahead. I have not found this generation to be cynical or apathetic or selfish. They are as strong and as decent as any people that I have met. And I will say this, on my way down here I stopped at Bethesda Naval, and when you talk to the young kids that are there that have just been back from Iraq and Afghanistan, you don’t have the worry about the future that you hear from so many that are not a part of this generation but judging it from above.

Our neighbor's garden is producing lots of very large (3") diameter zucchini, some over a foot long. As good neighbors do, he shared. And as we're southerners, the first thing we think to do with a gift of food is: Fry It!

These were so large, that slices were too large for our liking, so I cut each slice into bite-size wedges. To bread them, I put them in a bowl and cover with undiluted buttermilk, tossing them a bit so they are all coated. Then, in the one large tupperware bowl for which I haven't yet lost the lid, I mixed together approximately:

1 1/2 cups of yellow cornmeal 1 cup flour 1 tablespoon Lowry's seasoning 1 teaspoon onion powder 1/2 teaspoon garlic powder 1 teaspoon black pepper

The thing is I don't measure stuff, I just toss it in. I always start with a little less flour than cornmeal, and then just add stuff I've got, though I consider the above ingredients to be essential. Other additions might be dried herbs, such as parsley, tarragon, cilantro, or basil, perhaps some ground cardamom or cayenne pepper. The thing is to come up with a combination you like.

Next step: Drain the excess buttermilk from the zucchini wedges. I used a strainer, but you could dip them from the bowl with a slotted spoon. Then put them in the container with the dry ingredients, put the lid on, and shake with a sort of "flipping" motion.

I then dump the zucchini into another strainer and shake until all the excess cornmeal mixture is removed. If some of them stuck together and didn't get coated on both sides, I toss them back into the cornmeal for another shaking.

This process is messy. I've just messed up four bowls and two strainers. You could do this by hand, individually taking each piece from the buttermilk to the dry ingredients, but that's messy in another way: you bread your fingers as well, even if you use one hand for the "dry" and the other for the "wet" ingredients. Plus, you'll end up needing to strain the cornmeal mixture to get the lumps out anyway, so it's really only one extra bowl and strainer getting messed up.

Then again, with the hand method, you'll also have a lot of dry coating that will immediately fall off when it hits the grease. You'll either end up using that fourth bowl and strainer to strain hot oil or throwing the oil away. I generally use peanut oil for deep frying, and it is expensive enough that straining it is worth the effort. But I don't want to do it any more often than I have to.

Now that I've fried what we can eat today:

and since I've got this big mess already made, I bread the rest of this particular huge zucchini for freezing:

I put it in the freezer on the plate without a cover for about an hour, then put the pieces into ziploc baggies and pop those back into the freezer.

There are two similar sized zucchini still in the fridge. Look for another zucchini recipe next week. I've got zucchini-tomato quiche in mind.

AmbivaBlog: I've Changed My Mind... about Social Security. She makes a point worth pondering.

Beldar is back, and he's a head by 300 words.

Cybervassals offers a tip on shaving.

Dr. Ray dissects UCLA Psychology.

Ernie the Attorney with the lowdown on boilerplate language

The Fire Ant Gazette bashes Hollywood for incompetent nose-twitching.

Grits for Breakfast comments on the war on drugs: It's just like beating your dog...

Horologium hopes Sweden is not the canary in the coal mine for multiculturalism.

IAlog on video and audio blogging: too damned real-time. Exactly.

JimSpot compiles the absolute worst playlist imaginable.

Kojinshugi writes on the EU from an Estonian viewpoint.

The Longhorn Mafia thinks the Texas Legislature needs help in creatively regulating nonsense.

Mean Gene discovers Firefox and reminisces about the worst meal of his life.

Nerve Endings Firing Away on comments.

On The Third Hand is up in arms about Medicare's Viagra costs.

Possumblog reminds us the Supreme Court is not infallible.

Not so quiet at Quiet Here on the subject of high schools banning military recruiters

RAWbservations connects Calvinist Predestination and Obesity.

The Social Customer Manifesto discusses Fascinating Collaborative Environments.

Tired of Men talks herself out of being a wifey.

Under the Juniper rambles, but soothes.

Vengeful Cynic learns the value of planning ahead.

Woops! reviews Backpack.

X-Tra Rant says you can find out about the impact of a 100 meter iron meteorite.

Yarbroughs asks Who's racist again?

The Zero Boss: Sith Happens

An interesting proposal follows Newsweek's un-retraction of the Koran story.

I try to remember that one reason the news seems so bad so often is due to the "Man Bites Dog" principle. The breakdown of command and the subsequent mess at Abu Ghraib was newsworthy because it is not the way our military normally operates and not an example of the behavior of 99 and 44/100% of our soldiers.

It is the aberrant misbehavior of the misfit that is newsworthy, the man biting the dog. Newsweek's Koran-flushing brief falls into the same category. Almost...

When did the principle change to "Man May Have Bitten Dog" or "Man Threatens to Bite Dog" or, worse, become limited to "Bad Man Bites Good Dog"?

Since the heydey of the Edinburgh Review, it's no secret that bias makes information memorable. I don't have a problem with a biased approach to news, as long as it's news. I do have a problem with gossip and rumor presented as news... as fact. UPDATE: Via Sisu, that non-secret has now been verified by Harvard economists.

Tell me the truth, tell me what you think about it and we'll get along fine whether I agree with your opinion, or not. But you have to tell me the whole truth, even stories about good men biting bad dogs.

That's the issue that Blackfive has with Newsweek: their failure to print a story about a very good man biting a bad dog, and it's why he hasn't read Newsweek in two years. When the bias is presented in this way, it's not making information more memorable, it's suppressing it, keeping it from being remembered at all.

As so often happens, Baldilocks gets to the point in far fewer words.

This special edition of the Bonfire is up at The Conservative Cat.

What is the reasoning behind disapproving of an idea because the originator, or promoter, has disagreeable qualities?

Have you ever been to a restaurant and gotten a dish that's almost exactly the way you want it? 'If only,' you say to yourself 'it had a bit of...' but, alas, the only way to get it really right is to make it yourself.

Count your blessings. If all you're doing is adjusting a lasagna recipe, it's merely an exercise...

... try 'adjusting' beer.

Yep, I have been bitten by yet another hobbybug. This time, it's not quite as expensive as that 33' cabin cruiser I had down south, (sigh, I still miss her) but the potential mess in my kitchen is a lot greater. I'm talking about home-brewing.

The equipment isn't really all that specialized; that is, you can get items at brewery supply shops, or you can go to various hardware, cooking and hobby shops for the same gear (and usually less $$) but it can be bulky.

Imagine, if you want to, a big stock pot, with 3-5 gallons of boiling barley-sugar water. Then you start adding rocks, (certain styles depend on specific minerals in the water) flavorings, (you already know I was going to put coffee in, I'm not the first, I won't be the last (yes, you can put in chocolate as well (be nice to me or I'll post the recipe for putting a whole chicken in your beer))) sugars (gotta feed the yeast-beasts) and weeds, (have you ever tried to grow hops?) and if you're not really careful, you will see it boiling over. (so far *knock wood* I know this only from anecdotal evidence)

There are several levels, from 'just add water' right up through following the same processes the big boys do, just on a smaller scale, [kits are available all over] but the net result is a big container sitting in a cool corner, with an airlock rattling away as the sugars turn to alcohol and gas.

My first batch went off with nary a hitch, but it's not exactly what I wanted...

now comes the 'adjustment' part.

... anyone care to help me drink some really-and-truly fresh beer? (I need the bottles back, quick!)

Pajamahead

Or: Why are we still going after the good guys?

I feel I should elaborate a little on my 'porous border' comment from Tuesday. It started out well enough, but on its own, just complaining about a problem that is only slowly getting the attention it has long deserved doesn't really tie the issue together with the rest of the story. More honestly, I suppose it could, should the reader draw a few inferences, but some of them have to be drawn a good length and it's probably just easier to spell things out a bit.

California banned sales of rifles which chamber the 50 BMG round and there's a push on to enact a similar ban at the federal level. The reason, so we're told, is 'terrorism'.

Several things about the scenario (as shrieked hysterically by the likes of the Brady Bunch and their favourite Congressional line toers) bother me.

For one thing, there seems to be a very big list of 'terrorist suspects' in the US, but no one who is willing to talk will explain just how one gets one's name on, or off, that list. Further investigation yields the fact that they are less 'terrorist suspects', than people with some (nebulous?) 'links' to terrorist suspects. A huge deal was made when someone 'leaked' the information that several people on the list had purchased firearms. Forgive me if I'm not properly frightened by a 'terrorist suspect' who voluntarily submits himself/herself to a NICS inquiry and fills out the federal paperwork required by a firearm purchase. Are those the ones about which we need worry?

Of considerably more account is the fuss surrounding the Minuteman Project in southern Arizona, and the (mostly negative) attention those people have garnered. As, I'm sure, many others can, I can point to people who; on the basis of nothing more than stereotype conjecture; condemn the members of that project, regardless the fact that the Minutemen (and women) have, by all accounts, conducted themselves in an irreproachable manner.
What makes the project significant to me is less its organization itself, but the forces which created the need for such a project in the first place.

It is no secret that the southwestern border of the US is, to put it mildly, porous. Efforts to stem the tide (unfortunately, not a terribly exaggerated term) of illegal aliens across that border generally bring howls of outrage from both sides of the line. When Operation Gatekeeper went into effect, the 'tide' metaphor became even more apt, since; just as water that encounters a small obstacle; the flow merely moved around it. The only real effect was in the area crossed, not in the numbers crossing, and the check stations are still subject to 'flash floods', where people simply run through the checkpoint en masse. Many will be caught, but many will get through.

Does it occur to no one at the Federal level that; if 'terrorists' are such a threat that legal commerce in big-bore target rifles should be eliminated; it might be a better idea to do something,,, anything about the veritable highway into the US that is the southwestern border?
Apparently not. Bush, Rice and others called the people in the Minuteman Project 'vigilantes' and the MSM treated them with their usual disdain for anyone taking a 'non-progressive' approach to solving a problem. [if you think I'm a hardnose about it, you should see this guy

This is a book I carry around with me, for times I must wait - in doctor's offices, for example:

Here's the entry on BARBARIAN:

Cawfee, say Brooklynites when they mean coffee. If we were ancient Greeks we might think them barbarians for saying it thus; a barbarian to the Greek was someone whose speech, unlike Greek, sounded like an uncouth babble, or "barbar," source of the xenophobic Greek word "barbaros," which covered all elocutional crudity. Not only that: In its journey to us, giving us barbarous from Latin barbarus, the word brought with it Latin balbus, "stammering," in Spanish bobo (fool) and English booby. Something heroic seems to have hitched a ride along with this word, providing Italian with bravo (from brabus) and, by way of French, our brave. The foreign yob, bewildering with his barbaric yawp and pitiful stammer, extorted a little admiration now and then, even a Bronx cheer, for persisting in the effort to talk at all when clearly he was not wanted.

Though I first read that several years ago, it pops into my mind every time I hear the word "civilized," which I always thought was the opposite of "barbarian."

What have we lost when our words lose part of their heritage? If "civilized" is the opposite of "barbarian," then what, in nature of bravery, heroism, and tolerance, was the cost of civilization? Adam Smith defined the link between commercial society, refinement, and liberty -- the foundations of this country's civilization, but also noted it extinguishes man's "heroic spirit."

The more I think about this, it seems to me that "sophisticate" is a better antonym for "barbarian." But what, then is the relationship of both to civilization? A vibrant civilization must encompass both. One that loses the heroism and bravery that accompanied barbarism cannot achieve the greatness imagined and designed by its sophisticates.

Friday the 13th Edition

This week's Carnival of Recipes is at Boudicca's Voice.

It's Friday the 13th, and if you're the least bit superstitious (which I'm not, of course) you might not drive today, you might put off making important financial decisions, or you might just go back to bed. (Like I need a special day for that!)

Paraskevidekatriaphobia (or friggatriskaidekaphobia) is not for me. I like the concept of Blame Someone Else Day much better. It's simpler (no history to learn) and more eco-friendly (no superfluous lobbing the feet off rabbits or plucking of clover) and just plain handy. My only complaint is why just one day a year?

Oh, and I blame Charles for this post.

Juvenile Humor. (via Dean's World)

Andrew Cusack at The Officers' Mess, Wyvern.

Beaverhausen Blog is blogging about blogging.

A review of Marginalia at Crooked Timber

Dell, of Dell's Diner, had an interesting conversation with Comcast customer service.

The Elfin Ethicist has sizzling weekend plans.

Fanatical Apathy has upgraded and now you can fring with argfargles.

Gapingvoid: Heh.

James, of Hell In A Handbasket says Look! Up In The Sky!

Find out where you stand financially at It's My Country, Too

Joi Ito has a screenshot of something I hope I never personally experience - the RSOD.

The Kommentariat left Oceania, only to find himself in the USSA.

Learn to play the guitar at Left of Center.

A day in the life of a Military Bride

Rose, at No Credentials says You say "politics," I say "art."

Thoughts on Corporate America and Conservatism from Our Word and Welcome to It.

Professor Chaos, a homewrecker?

The Quirky Chick is wondering about axe-murderers.

A new twist on guns and property noted at Random & Politically Incorrect Thoughts.

Sensible Mom says slickness never forgiven in Republicans.

Toys in the Attic raises the B.S. flag.

All about Lucy at Unscrewing the inscrutable

Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor: Mr. SpamMan.

A Parental Dilemma at What makes you happy?

The cost of believing explored at xphiles

Your Moosey Fate has Fun With Google Image Searches.

A soliloquy from ZuDfunck

I got a spanking on my first day of school. The next year I was called a liar by the teacher. The year after that I found my teacher sorely lacking in knowledge of state capitals and reasoning ability.

As a result, I never quite trusted any teacher or what any teacher told me after that. That attitude transfers easily to almost any 'expert'.

So, I wonder about the clamor to get back to the good ole days of the three R's. Those were the good ole days when a third grade teacher emphatically insisted that Oklahoma City wasn't the capital of Oklahoma. Her reasoning? If that were the case, Kansas City would be the capital of Kansas.

How much of an effect did that have on me? Today, 40 something years later, I just Googled capital of Oklahoma to make sure (for the 500th time) that yes, Oklahoma City is the capital.

Do we want to go back to the days when a teacher felt secure enough to call a student a liar in front of the class because the student had a wider range of experience than she did? This time, it was the typical "what did you do over the summer" question. I told about how close a forest fire got to our house and about helping my mother cook for the men fighting it. Not only did she accuse me of making up the story, she said it could not have happened because even if there had been a forest fire, women and children would not have been living close to it.

From then on, when similar questions arose, I always made something up.

Oddly, the spanking had little effect. It didn't intimidate me at all, merely made me aware that there were different rules at school than at home, where I never had to ask permission to get up and go to the window if there was a parade going on outside. The message could have been given with words instead of a paddle, but my young tender psyche wasn't damaged.

I had long been aware of the utility of spankings and their usefulness as timesavers. It was my father's insistence that I understand fully why I was going to be spanked and how it hurt him ever so much more than it was going to hurt me that was a far worse punishment than the actual spanking. I always breathed a sigh of relief when the spanking commenced because it meant the punishment was over. The few spankings I got that weren't accompanied by a lecture were for the kind of infractions that had to be punished, but rendered my father either incapable of keeping a straight face long enough to lecture me or made him remember fondly similar stunts he'd pulled as a kid.

It's probably merely a sign of my advancing age that I'm remembering these educational horrors, but I worry about the state of the schools that will be educating my grandchildren. If a little spanking would restore discipline to the classroom, why not try it? I'm not talking about beatings - that's a different subject. Though, according to Freakonomics, spanking by parents doesn't seem to matter to school performance, so it may not matter if it's done by educators. That wasn't, however, one of the questions he asked, so it wasn't answered. Maybe it should be asked.

I'd like to see regular testing of teachers on subject matter. Why not test our teachers as rigorously as we're testing the students? It seems wasteful to test 30 people to find out if one is doing a good job, without trying to determine what the cause is of the failure. At the very least, have the teacher take the test along with the students.

I'm not sure the problems within our schools were identified before the cure was implemented. I do think the tests can be useful to identify some of the problems, but using them to justify punishment, reward, or funding is laziness. It skips the whole problem-solving step.

In some ways, the debate over the 'big 50' can showcase, not just what is wrong with the approach regarding violent crime, but government's approach to... well... really quite a few things.

Consider: The 50 BMG round has been in circulation since just after WWI and has seen extensive service in many different venues. It was initially designed as an aircraft mounted machine gun, but was quickly adapted to ground use as well. They were everywhere in WWII; aircraft, (the P-47 'Thunderbolt' mounted 8, one variant of the B-25 medium bomber sported no fewer than 14) armor, (as the coaxial gun on tanks) with the infantry, light recon vehicles, (remember 'the Rat Patrol'?) in multiple mounts for anti-aircraft work, and heavily utilized by the Navy. In Korea, M2 machine gun barrels were fitted with receivers, sights and manual bolts and used as long-range sniper rifles to engage targets at up to a mile.

That trend continues to this day, with a sniper team from Canada resetting the mark for a long-range kill, using a rifle chambered for the BMG round. (2400 some meters, you do the math) They are still in use in the military, both on the ground and in some few (generally rotary wing) aircraft.

The load is impressive: a 647 grain bullet at roughly 3000 fps muzzle velocity. (750 grain bullets are also used) Just for reference, there are 7000 grains to a pound, which means that payload is well over an ounce of jacketed lead, moving somewhere around 2000 miles per hour. However you want to figure energy, there's a lot of it.

Now, while this is unquestionably a very powerful round, one should not forget that 'big game' rifles have long been chambered in such things as the colossal 700 Nitro Express round, a full .7 inches in diameter and a very common big-bore for dangerous game is the .458 magnum that can push a 600 grain payload. The reality is that there is no shortage of rifle rounds that have a LOT of downrange energy. They tend to share a few attributes; punishing recoil, a lot of bulk and a very hefty pricetag.

This, then, is the 'big 50'. A few companies have chambered rifles in 50 BMG for the sport shooting market. They are, in a word, massive. While there are so many variations that it's impossible to list even the available range, for the sake of argument, consider that a 'basic' 30-06 'deer rifle' will sport a barrel generally between 18 and about 24 inches. Lighter versions weigh in at 5 1/2-odd pounds, 6 1/2-7 isn't uncommon for many and they can go well up from there. Contrast this to the 'big 50' rifles, with barrels up to 33 inches and beyond, and an extremely light one is 13 pounds. (there are doubtless companies offering variations of which I am not currently aware and I welcome new information, but I sincerely doubt anyone makes a 'little' one) When they first hit the market, they quickly were dubbed the new 'weapon of choice' for those ever-so-useful 'gangers and drug dealers'... until people started looking at the real-world concealability of a 4 1/2 foot long, 25 pound rifle and decided to relatively quietly set that attempt aside.

Fast forward a few years. The 'big 50' becomes more popular at sport shooting venues all over,,, and the ban advocates set their sights on it again. The format is instantly recognizeable, only the names have changed. Like last time, they trot out the 'reason du jour'... Terrorism.

Yep, you guessed it. These rifles, with destructive power unheard of anywhere but the artillery corps are now the 'weapon of choice' for terrorists. (terrorists, you see, are more useful than 'gangers and drug dealers', because you never actually have to catch one doing what you claim they want to do) You remember those terrorists, don't you? They're the ones who were coming to gun shows in the US so they could buy semi-auto 'assault weapons' and ten-round magazines for upwards of $1,000, instead of the full-auto versions and 30 round mags available overseas for $18.50 US; only now they want the 50s. (no one accused them of being bright terrorists)

Out comes the big lie. Actually, there are MANY of them all built into the same incrementalist move. Ronnie Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms has a few things to say on the subject. He has something of a personal interest, since his company is under direct attack by the fabrication machinery of the Brady Bunch and the State of California. Among other things, they like to complain that Osama bin Laden and his gang have 50 BMG rifles manufactured by Barrett's company. They keep forgetting to tell people that those rifles were provided to bin Laden et al by the US Government to help against the Soviets when Afghanistan was invaded, but apparently details are for wimps.

So now 'we' are supposed to be deathly afraid that terrorists will buy these rifles and create havoc at our airports, refineries, power distribution stations, government offices and other assorted critical infrastructure venues. (if certain congresspersons would quit diagramming how to do exactly such a thing on television, the danger might be lessened, but maybe I'm just picky) This danger is apparently so great that law-abiding citizens should be permanently denied the recreational use of these firearms in perpetuity. The danger is so immediate that it should be done now, if not sooner. I have a question...

Am I honestly expected to believe that 'terrorists' are going to walk into a legitimate firearms dealer, fill out the required paperwork, go through a background check and pay $1500+ dollars for a single shot rifle? (they go up to well over $10k)

Well, okay, I was supposed to believe similar stories about semi-auto 'assault weapons'... so I guess they really do think I'm that stupid... but this brings up another point.

... why are we simply trying to (marginally) affect the tools these terrorists might employ? IF the danger is so immediate and so clear, why are we concentrating on the possible tools these terrorists might purchase, knowing that, to do so, they must pass a background inquiry at a federally-licensed dealer? Wouldn't it be much better for the American people if someone actually did something about the terrorists? I mean, I'm no criminal psychologist, but it just seems to me that a real 'terrorist' isn't going to decide to pack up and go home simply because he can't plunk down $8,000 for a rifle.

While we're at it, can someone explain to me why people are so busy trying to get rifles out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that they can't find time to do something about a national border which has shown itself to be remarkably porous? I'm disenchanted enough with the soul-selling grandstanding which is the sum total of the efforts most congresscritters expend that I don't want to look up how many of the people looking to ban 50s are the same ones complaining bitterly about the 'Minuteman' project along the Arizona border. (don't remind me, I know George bitched about them, too; and yes, that annoys me no end)

That, and it annoys the hell out of me that now, we're not only supposed to give up the legitimate sporting use of a class of firearms, due to a few awful, but statistically vanishingly rare occurrences; but of another whole class of them, not because anyone has misused them, but because someone, somewhere, might.

Maybe I'm just easily annoyed... but more likely, the government is showing itself to be very good at not impressing me.

Victor Davis Hanson

Reverence for those who came before us ensures humility about our own limitations. It restores confidence that far worse crises than our own — slavery, the great flu epidemic, or World War II — were endured with far less resources.

By pondering those now dead, we create a certain pact: We, too, will do our part for another generation not yet born to enjoy the same privilege of America, which at such great cost was given to us by others whom we have now all but forgotten.

For 4 Servings:

6 Tbs olive oil (divided)

1 ½ cups chopped onions

1 tsp finely chopped garlic

3- 28 ounce Cans Italian Style Tomatoes, drained and coarsely chopped

2 tsp dried basil leaves

2 tsp crushed red pepper flakes (more if you like it spicier!)

¼ tsp black pepper

Salt to taste

2 cups chicken broth

1 lb rigatoni or penne pasta

2 ½ cup (about 10 ounces) of shredded Plain Havarti Cheese

1/3 cup (1-2 ounces) freshly grated Parmesan cheese

1/3 cup black olives

¼ cup fresh basil or parsley for garnish

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Heat 3 tbs oil in large skillet over med-high heat. When oil is hot, add onions, garlic and sauté, stirring, for about 3 minutes. Add tomatoes, basil, scant 2 tsp red pepper flakes, pepper and 1 tsp salt and stir well. Add broth and bring to a low boil.

2. Cook until liquid has reduced and mixture is chunky, about 25 minutes. Remove from heat. Taste and add more pepper flakes as needed.

3. Cook Pasta. After cooked, drain well. Place in a greased 2 ½ to 3 quart gratin or baking dish that can be used for serving. Toss pasta with remaining 3 Tbs oil. Taste, and if needed, add more salt.

4. Add warm tomato sauce to pasta and toss well to combine. Add Havarti and toss again. Spring Parmesan on top. Arrange olives, shiny side up, over pasta. Arrange on the center rack and cook, uncovered, until hot and bubbly for about 25 minutes. Remove and sprinkle w/ basil or parsley.

My daughter just emailed this link to me. I'm almost too angry to type.

This site absolutely must be a bad joke. Even the worst of the worst can't be this bad can they?

I'm not linking to the jerk, you'll have to copy and paste: http://www.forsakethetroops.info/index.shtml

Our problem is this: the military is a lifestyle these morons chose. What idiot risks their life for a country? It's what they chose. Forsake our Troops! They must think that if they go to war, they don't need to pay taxes just......just like the rest of us. Let 'em die in combat-- we don't need their ilk!

More...

Despite common opinion, we are not a hate group to the degree that we do not (officially) condone acts of violence, or any illegal acts towards military facilities or personnel.

I feel nauseous now.

UPDATE: Now the jerk has faked his own death for attention. What an ass.

People in the pro-rights movement often make much of the ban advocates' continuous, not to say deliberate, misuse of terms to make their points. How is it, then, that ‘we’ ourselves, often make some of the very same misuses of terms?

Consider the ubiquitous ‘assault weapon’, a term that was coined by firearms manufacturers to denote the semi-automatic civilian versions of military-issue rifles. Why that particular usage was thought to be a reasonable approach, when the already-politically-charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of privately held firearms was unfriendly to the law-abiding gun owner at best, is anyone’s guess. Certainly it shouldn’t have made a difference, because it is the criminal misuse of firearms which is the ‘problem’, not the legal possession/use thereof; but the law of unintended consequences is no respecter of philosophical standing, or truth and treats legal-use advocate and restrictionist alike. Needless to say, that term has backfired, as it was ‘hijacked’ by the disarmament advocacies (this includes much of the 'neutral' (cough) media) as a perfect vehicle behind which to demonize an entire class of firearms.

Leaving aside such relatively harmless distinctions as ‘clip’, versus ‘magazine’, (a Garand uses a ‘clip’, the rest of the ‘magazine’ is internal; the AR-based rifles and the GI .45 use ‘magazines’) 'we' do need to be careful about another common use: calling a semi-automatic pistol an ‘automatic’. I know, I know, the legendary 1911 is chambered for the .45 ‘Automatic Colt Pistol’ round, but it’s still, excepting very rare pieces, a semi-automatic. Given the pleasure much of the media seems to take in using visual aids of fully-automatic firearms when describing (in completely neutral exercise of journalistic integrity, I’m sure) semis, this is one place ‘we’ should be cautious.

My personal ‘hot button’ (the world is full of such terms) is the use of ‘weapon’ when one references a firearm. Whether or not ‘weapon’ as a term is legitimately viewed negatively, it is just the same, and often enough that its use should perhaps be discouraged. Current usage, for the most part, has ‘weapon’ denoting an arm (not necessarily a firearm) that is used/to be used to injure or kill. (if ‘guns are made to kill’, I’ve never seen or had one that worked properly, outside certain hunting venues) There are many other examples.

I admit this is a small area in which to expend effort. There are and will unfortunately continue to be, many more direct attacks on legal firearms ownership, and those must be countered, but if firearm owners are to note that misrepresentation of fact through misuse of terms is a tool of the ban advocacy network, 'we' should clean our own houses, first. It needn’t interfere with any other effort.

Inarguably, it should be unnecessary. The ‘problem’ of legal firearm possession in the US is a smokescreen, put up by the ban advocates. It is not now and never has been a ‘problem', when law-abiding citizens own firearms of all shapes, sizes and capabilities. The ‘problem’ for which all the gun control legislation is proposed; often by people who will later claim that ‘gun control isn’t crime control’, when their measures fail; is criminal misuse. (accidents are at an all-time low and suicide rates do not depend on the tools available) What ‘we’ have, then, is the real question of what to do about crimes committed with firearms. It should depend on fact, not on which terminologies make the easiest vehicles behind which to demonize firearms and disarm citizens.

The simple truth is that there is a drive to demonize lawful firearm possession and use. Phrases like ‘normalizes use’, or ‘encourages ownership’ are used in attempts to censor speech, education and advertising, as if legal firearms ownership and usage was somehow shameful, or abnormal. In the face of this drive, firearms owners should absolutely NOT change their views, nor should they accept the premise that ‘modern’ life should view firearms as somehow anachronistic or unbefitting civilized society. They can, however, be careful when referencing the quite, quite ordinary and perfectly acceptable legal possession and use of firearms.

Simply being careful when ‘coming to terms’ with the firearm issue is one compromise ‘we’ can make.

The AnarchAngel is gun-shopping for an "All Rounder".

I need to build myself a rifle; and I'm not looking for some deer specialty gun. You know me; if it aint versatile, I'm not really all that enthusiastic.

I want an all'rounder. A gun that will reach out for medium game to say... 400 yards or thereabouts, and punch pretty little holes in paper to 600 yards or so.

It can't break the bank; even with accessories; and it has to be light and packable, even with optics, and a bipod.

I like this one:

EuroHacker Magazine is a European webzine dealing with hacking, technology, guns, libertarianism, survival, science fiction and general crazyness, published by an 18-year-old Swede. Several articles may be of interest - an interview with libertarian geek Eric S. Raymond in Issue #1, and a review of the JPFO's anti-gun control documentary "Innocents Betrayed" in Issue 2. It should be interesting reading from the perspective of European pro-gun viewpoint.

Tyler D. of 45-Caliber Justice has an A-Z 2nd Amendment Refresher Course.

Entrees (you have to clean your plate before you get desert)

California Ammunition Serial Number Stupidity from The Auto Prophet, has a powerfully short list of four reasons why this is a dumb idea.

From Cogito Ergo Geek in Kalifornia: Bullet coding scheme clears first political hurdle, Jerry the Geek links to the text of the bill, analyzes it in depth and tears it to shreds, "...it's even worse than the newspapers described it." Even with my limited understanding of the technical items addressed, there are some frightening administrative gems in there.

Mich at Tonecluster reminds us:

It was not that long ago that Jews couldn't carry guns, that we were denied the means to defend ourselves against those who would see us butchered, burned, gassed, annhilated. If it could happen in enlightened, civilized Germany, it can happen anywhere. And yes, I do think that anywhere includes Canada and the US.

For a little history on previous bad policy and bad laws pertaining to guns, Pajama Pundits' own SemiOnager returns to the fray with Federal Regulatory prowess and other myths. (Welcome back, you've been missed!)

Josh Poulson says Gerald Nunziato Deserves None of Your Attention. Why, you ask?

He doesn't understand that so long as people are using them for lawful purposes it's none of his business that they buy one or a hundred.

Josh has more... go see.

El Capitan from Baboon Pirates has a paradoxical, insoluble, difficult question: 2nd Amendment Conundrum: How Much Is Too Much?

Naturally, the conversation turned to our common desire for belt-fed armaments (in my case, just 'cause I hate to reload after 20-30 rounds) and then onward to bigger weapons. Somewhere along the line we got around to discussing the magnificent 16" rifles that grace the (sadly) decommissioned Iowa Class battleships.

Rockhauler wanted to own one. I scoffed a bit, asking "Where would you store it, or shoot it?" He replied that that was not the point. If he could swing the coin for the purchase, he ought to be able to own one, in full workable condition, not a dewat or disabled piece.

Now click on over there for the rest of the story.

How are "evil sniper rifles" different from a good hunting rifle? Gullyborg, Resistance is futile! explains in Sniper Rifles. I oughta quote Shakespeare here, but I won't. I won't. The hell I won't!

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

SemiOnager weighs in again explaining how gun control isn't about crime.

He's Mostly Cajun and he's a handloader offering some excellent advice:

Handloading isn't for everyone. If attention to detail isn't your thing, then take up golf or something. An improperly assembled handload can result in the high velocity disassembly of a firearm in close proximity to your face, a definite downer.

Just Deserts

And now, a double scoop from Owen:

Slugz Roxors!!

poor Wilson...

Gun Etiquette from the Conservative Cat. I'm not sure this is what Miss Manners had in mind.

If you go to Ravenwood's Universe, there are more Machine Gun Shoot photos like this one... lots more.

Kim du Toit: I want this rifle:

The icing on the cake: Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog

After Dinner Mints

Other links from around the web that might be of interest to Carnival readers thanks to Dave of Resistance is futile!

2nd Amendment phone service - you really can put your money where your mouth is!

Dave got a free DVD from Front Sight in the mail and while it’s mostly just an infomercial trying to get you to pay lots of money for gun training, it’s fun to watch and has some good pointers for winning pro-gun arguments. You can get a copy of the free DVD here: Front Sight firearms Training Institute.

That should be plenty of gun nutrition to hold you until the next Carnival of Cordite. Send submissions to:

c a r n i v a l o f c o r d i t e A T h o t m a i l D O T c o m

Or, you can use the Carnival Submit Form from Conservative Cat.

Thank you for visiting!

From Alas: A Blog, Why Men Right's Activists Prefer Data From Before 1990

From Dean's World: Men's Issues and Stats

Both have a point and both are right, in some respects.

The first link deals with the use of urban data from 1988 to "prove" that women are almost as likely to commit intimate murder as men. It accuses MRAs (men's rights activists) of striving for status as "equal victims" and speculates that this is tied to a larger movement to show that patriarchy doesn't exist, therefore women have nothing to complain about.

Go read it, there are some nice charts and links to DOJ and FBI figures showing a decline in the rate of women murdering their spouses since 1980.

I think this article is correct - there is little evidence to show that men are equal victims of intimate murder. However, I disagree with the credit given to no-fault divorce and to availability of shelters for abused women. That they have some impact, no doubt, but the likely cause is the improvement in education and employment opportunities for black women, and... the question must be asked: What effect did the incarceration rate of black males have on these figures?

I'd like to see some Freakonomics applied in this area.

Now, to Dean's World, where the author is an advocate for equal access for all to Domestic Violence services. That is a worthy goal. I have also seen with my own eyes how "battered women's shelters" (non-profits in general, IMHO) blatantly misuse statistics and use their clients for political and financial gain.

I do not think this has anything to do with the subversive goal of promoting divorce of any style or an intention to break up marriages and make the family unit history. It is greed, pure and simple, of the management - the CEOs of the non-profit, whether it's a women's shelter, a homeless shelter, addiction treatment facility... etc. The second most abused group at a non-profit agency are the "line" employees who work long hours at low salaries and generally do so because they sincerely want to do good.

My opinion is based on experience working with private non-profit agencies, so this argument, I found really amusing:

Had domestic violence services been left to the non-profit and private charity sector where they belonged, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

So... Alas, a Blog is right - statistics are being misused. Dean's World is also right - domestic violence shelters aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing.

But they're both wrong in blaming each other. I would hope their goals are the same: a reduction of domestic violence and the equal treatment under the law of everyone, regardless of their gender identity.

How often has the phrase 'gun control isn't about crime control' been heard? One usually hears it as the answer, when someone points out that using gun control as crime control doesn't work.

It is true, though, or in a way it is, anyhow. At best, 'controlling crime' through disarming the law-abiding is a trickle down approach, where the ban advocates seemingly believe that; if everyone who does obey the law gives up their firearms, those who don't won't have them anymore. They even have something of a point, if you squint hard enough. The net result of a completely disarmed lawful citizenry in the US would be an eventual (opinions vary on how long that eventuality will take) lessening of firearms in criminal hands, but only those which were obtained from the law-abiding. The ‘relief’, such as it is, would be slight. As most folk who pay attention (this unfortunately excludes a lot of the people who currently write public firearms policy) know, firearms are stolen from law-abiding citizens. However, firearms are also stolen from: manufactory floors, dealers, shipments and US military armories, to say nothing about thefts from police stations/units and the FBI. (that last group has 'lost' over 100 firearms, including MP5s (those are real assault weapons, fully automatic and everything)) Too, it would take a very great leap of illogic to presume that a smuggling apparatus which has little trouble bringing cocaine, marijuana, heroin and other substances into the country by the ton would somehow be unable to bring firearms along. (once again, people who write policy too often seem capable of exactly such a leap (more about 'policymakers' and their grasp of the subjects they attempt to regulate here))

There are other, clearer indicators. It’s not particularly uncommon knowledge anymore (except to those who don’t wish to know such things (there are none so truly blind...)) that England; which has effectively rendered handgun possession illegal for subjects; is seeing what are arguably the fruits of that regulation: namely, that violent crime is rising and, despite the ban, criminal possession of handguns is at an all-time high. There may or may not be a direct correlation between the two fact sets, but the US ‘allows’ private ownership of both handguns and longarms, (the legal argument surrounding that ‘allowance’ is not for this article) and sees a rate of residential burglary where the owner is in residence at the time (a ‘hot’ burglary, or home invasion) that is roughly 1/4 the incidence in England. What is less arguable is that the incident rate in England is rising. ‘Oh yes,’ the ban advocates say ‘and just what is the murder rate in England, compared to the US?’ “I’m glad you asked.” is the proper reply. The truth is that the homicide rate in England is roughly 1/3 that of the US. When one says that, the ban advocates take a deep breath, preparing to crow mightily that ‘bans work!’

Just smile.

“Interestingly enough, back 80 or so years ago, when the US and the UK had remarkably similar ‘gun control’ laws, (namely, virtually none) the rate in England was less than 1/5 that of the US.”
They’re catching up.

The ban advocates shouldn’t look too closely at the rest of the violent crime rate comparison, either. You’re ‘safer’ in New York than in London.

At the core of the issue is the approach. Just how are laws supposed to affect those people who demonstrate that they don’t care to be bound by law? Is someone bent on committing murder going to decide not to, because he/she might be committing the lesser felony of firearm possession, should they use a gun?

This is the point where one is most likely to encounter the ‘but gun control isn’t about crime control’ part of the argument. Reality, not a particularly good friend of the anti-gunowner movement, shows us that; as a crime reduction tool, ‘gun control’ is remarkable in its ineffectiveness. More of it is simply not needed.

If it’s true that ‘gun control isn’t supposed to be crime control’, we 'need it' even less

It is a matter of some extreme interest to me, that - so very, very often - people who evidence an abysmal lack of knowledge about the technical aspects of firearms design/operation, nevertheless feel qualified to write binding firearms policy at the local, state, or national level, because they know we 'need' their regulation.

Far and away the most prominent recent example is the Ugly Ban, (that's the '94 Assault Weapons Ban, for the sticklers among you) which made certain firearms unavailable for public sale, based; not on criminal misuse frequency, (that one would have the venerable .38 revolver banned for life) or function; but on cosmetic feature.

A f'r instance: the AR-15 and its myriad clones. These are the emerging kings of the centerfire rifle matches, as well as using the standard (for now) round for US and most allied forces. (surplus ammo is dirt cheap) In 'original' configuration, they quite often have a flash hider (we'll get back to that) and/or an underlug on which to fix a bayonet, often a 20-round magazine and sometimes a telescoping or folding stock. Some few had a forward pistol grip and/or a handguard for the barrel. When the ban hit, by decree, that flash hider became a tool for crime. So did the bayonet lug. That pistol grip all-of-a-sudden was a mechanism 'designed to spray fire from the hip'... only it was no such thing. [Side note: 'firing from the hip' is definitionally inaccurate, adding a forward grip doesn't change that. Try firing 'from the hip' at the local range and see how long it takes you to get ejected. There's a reason, too, that you never see soldiers using that method... if they ever tried to practice it at their range, they would get a lot worse than merely kicked off the firing line. However, in a close quarters battle scenario, (the sort of thing in which gangers and drug dealers don't generally get involved) where one keeps the firearm shouldered and sweeps the area with the business end, that forward grip can assist in handling.] The flash hider was there 'so the police can't tell who is shooting at them'... only a flash hider is good solely for keeping the muzzle flash from affecting the shooter him/herself. There is nothing you can do about hiding the muzzle flash on the business end. Let's not forget threaded barrels, which had to be regulated because criminals would affix 'silencers' to their rifles. This neglects to consider the fact that a suppressor ('silencers' only work in Hollywood (why can't we get one that could be affixed to a congressman?)) is already a class III item. Just having one, with or without a firearm on which it might fit, requires extensive Federal paperwork and a stamp, it's a federal felony to have one without. A handguard somehow made a rifle a 'weapon of choice' for the gangers and the drug dealers, but why it did so was never really addressed. What 'we' did get was federal legislation that banned any rifle having more than one of those particular fixtures.

Read that part again. Rifles that had two or more of those cosmetic fixtures were banned by that Federal regulation. Why? Apparently because if it 'looks' nasty, it must be nasty.

Nevermind that the actual functionality of the firearm was never addressed. Nevermind that none of those features, in any way, changes the downrange performance of the cartridge. Nevermind that the firearms banned by name in the regulation were functionally identical to many, many that were not. Nevermind that the cartridge the AR-15 and its many clones use(s); 5.56 NATO if you like it in metric, .223 Remington if you like things the old way; is a flyweight on the 'power' scale... if it had a sufficiency of 'bad' fixtures, it was banned under the regulation. Someone, somewhere pretended that they actually thought 'people' would be safer if criminals had a tougher time getting rifles with bayonet lugs.

I'm still waiting for the 'blood in the streets' which is the sure result of the sunset of the ban, allowing the gangs to go back to having their bayonet charges down Main Street like in the old days.

Surely everyone remembers those bayonet charges, don't they? I mean, it was an important, and frequent, enough occurrence that it required Federal legislation. Surely someone noticed,,, didn't they?

Too, every time someone comes out with a new firearm, particularly when it's on the higher end of the power scale, one politician or another will try to get recognition (and the attendant media facetime) for 'trying to make our streets safer'... usually by banning something that hasn't been and won't be a 'problem' in the first place. Case in point: Smith & Wesson's 500 Magnum revolver. It's enormous. From the factory, with the standard 8 3/8" barrel, this 5-shot monster has an overall length of 15" and weighs in at a cool 72 ounces... EMPTY! (mutter, mutter, 72, divide, carry the 6, mutter, mutter) That's four and a half pounds before you put the shells in.

And yet, this big (big, big, big) bulky, EXPENSIVE revolver (retail is in the $1100 range) was instantly condemned as some kind of danger to the population-at-large. The reason? It would be, so we were supposed to believe, a status symbol for the criminals. Yeah,,, right.

One iteration which we already covered, but which bears repeating, is the 'cop killer bullet' debacle; as textbook a case of media-assisted buffoons making a mountain out of a non-existent molehill as can be found. Teflon (tm) a coating with a very low coefficient of friction, made a debut of sorts as a bullet coating. This cut down barrel wear a little, increased bullet velocity a little and aided accuracy a little. What it did not do was aid penetration or terminal energy in any measurable way, but why let facts get in the way of a good hysterical outcry? Boston's favourite swimmer got another moment in the spotlight, complaining about these bullets which were 'designed to penetrate body armor'. Small problem, Senator, they weren't,,, and they don't any better with the coating than without. Another problem, of course, is that writing regulation based solely on a soft armor penetration test would eliminate all but short range varmint hunting almost instantly, since no few handguns and a whole lot of small and medium rifles can easily 'fail' that test.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but is it too, too much to ask that someone know what the (censored) it is about which they speak before they try to write binding government regulation on a particular subject? [yes, yes, I know,,, it's too entirely possible that they aren't all as stupid as their regulations may make them appear, but if one accepts that, one opens the discussion on deliberately misleading regulation, which is a whole nother topic]

A Peck of Gold explains The Zen of Ten and has the perfect t-shirt for it.

At Blogoram, Rammer wants to follow Oklahoma's lead.

Critters and blackberries on CrabAppleLane.

Dangerous Logic gets it.

Evilwhiteguy reflects on Scenes From A Bar.

Rob, of Fine? Why Fine? explains why he watches House.

Garfield Ridge takes on Slate's condescension in The Future of Beer.

Hail the Ale - beer, beer, and more beer. (Hmmm... could Slate be wrong?)

Illuminated Obscurity on how some modern communists are historically divorced from real life.

At Jessie's Blog, tinfoil isn't working.

Key Issues passes a major milestone with a little help from friends.

LA - Not the Good One (haha!) visits Atlantic City

Machete of Truth discovers The Web is really amazing.

N.O. Pundit comments on the what is sometimes the only moral thing left to do.

Old and Evil. And Single... for a while. Maybe.

From the Parkway Rest Stop, Jimbo's Bits of Wordly Advice.

Dad's right at QT Monster's Place

Rivrdog is P.O.'d.

Straight White Guy tells a story about A Gentle Man, my kind of gentleman.

Tales of Tadeusz disagrees with John McCain.

The Ultimate Insult has an idea for disgusting a vegetarian or annoying a PETAphile with these.

Vince Aut Morire commiserates with the French.

WuzzaDem has the scoop on 15 lb. burgers and 5 gallons of something else.

xrlq (aka Damnum Asbque Injuria, but I'm cheating, okay?) takes on the Wall Street Journal for exaggerating.

Matthew Yglesias yaps about Yuppie Scum

There's a Love/Hate relationship with blogs and blogging going on a Zoe Tales that I understand completely.

I can't put this off any longer. I've been challenged, I must answer. I've been tagged with the TITP meme:

Turd in a punchbowl

With wit so rapier

Turd in a punchbowl

Why did no one bring paper?

Now, my reward. I get to pass this on to three more deserving people. I choose Army of Mom (because... I can :-), Beldar (because if anything can make him blog again, this should), and fling93 (because there might be something fishy 'bout this whole thing).

I don't have HBO, so I was spared Jane Fonda's appearance on Bill Maher's HBO show last week. Judging from what Ann Althouse has written about it, I saved myself not only the monthly cost of HBO, but also an unhealthy spike in blood pressure.

Maher has just said that since a veteran spat on her at a reading, she can say that's "penance enough." Fonda says "hundreds" of Vietnam vets have come to her readings in the last few weeks "and they've been fabulous... They have forgiven me. So there are some who are stuck back there. But most are not." Then Maher has this:

Yeah, it really is on them at this point, isn't it? If somebody can't get over something in 35 years.

Somebody? Something? Maher didn't go to Vietnam. Who is he to say get over it? Sure, there are "things" that if you're still stewing about them 35 years later, you've got a problem, but if you haven't gone to war, have the decency to refrain from telling people who have that they need to get over it.

Who is Fonda to tsk at people who are "stuck back there"? She does a big shrug and says, "Well, you know the problem is, we've never really come to terms with the war," (emphasis mine)...

Fonda means Vietnam, but it's more than that. Both the Civil War and the Vietnam War drove wedges in the ideological split that continues today from the time "when the first Scots-Irish parcels from Ulster — turned away from the Puritan settlements in Massachusetts — headed for the hills of New Hampshire", but began around the time Hadrian was building a wall.

James Webb, in Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, explains how today's "most visible fault line between the people of this [Scots-Irish] culture and those who so adamantly shape modern America's intellectual and political agenda began during the turmoil of the civil rights issue":

One does not need to defend the conduct of those who opposed racial integration in order to understand it, and one does not need to condemn the actions of those who pushed for integration in order to call into question some of their long-term motives. After a hundred years this issue was balled up in a Gordian knot that was almost impossible to untie. One could never question the motives, or even the tactics, of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose equanimity was Lincolnesque in its breadth of vision. But others, white and black alike, were bent on using the issue to foment a larger revolution. (emphasis mine)

The Students for a Democratic Society - the SDS - a major player in the Vietnam anti-war movement, formed in 1962 to bring 'revolution' to America, using race as the primary issue... "the permeating and victimizing fact of human degradation, symbolized by the Southern struggle against racial bigotry" was one of these 'others'. (Tom Hayden, a key leader of the SDS, with Jane Fonda ran the Indochina Peace Coalition.) These were the 60's core of the cultural Marxists and activist Left radicals whose influence and power had been growing for decades in academia.

Who was the enemy "poster child" of the civil rights movement? The Southern Redneck, the cultural descendant of the Ulster Scot and the iconic Confederate Soldier, whose only visible advantage over Southern blacks was not being excluded from the front of the bus and the "Whites Only" bathrooms and lunch counters. As Webb puts it:

...if these were the people who took something away from black America, where did they hide it — inside their corn-shuck mattresses?

And who are the Vietnam veterans that Fonda wants to forgive her? According to Webb, the South had a 32% higher casualty rate in Vietnam than the Northeast, with West Virginia's higher than any other state.

...these casualities, were occurring at a time when the draft laws gave liberal exceptions to those who remained in college, and when the more advantaged members of the age group were actively counseled on how to avoid military service. Only 11 percent of the draft-eligible males ... actually went to Vietnam, and only 33% served in the military at all.

Vietnam Veterans, as the military of this country has always been, are more often than not, Jacksonian populists -- the natural enemy of and greatest obstacle to the activist Left, of which Jane Fonda is still a member in good standing. While one motto of the Jacksonian populist might be "No Surrender" another might be "Never Forget". This doesn't mean Jane Fonda can't or won't be forgiven. Yet, is the forgiveness asked for because she has seen the error of her ways, or because... damn, it's been 35 years!

Or is this forgiveness being sought because, as Mead says, "...Jacksonian political allegiance will be one of the keys to the politics of the twenty-first century."

I expect we will see a lot more not-so-humble pleas for forgiveness before the 2008 elections.

Ann Althouse asks: Do you think there are any well-known bloggers with anonymous side blogs?

This, my 'official' blog, doesn't have much of a footprint... to call it well-known would be silly, yet the temptation of anonymity still arises. Yes, I would probably link the blogs eventually. I think that temptation - once the alter ego blog existed - would be overwhelming.

On the surface, this sounds a little dishonest. In reality, our personalities are so complex, so faceted, something is always left unrevealed.

There is a demand for consistency in thought and action in our public personas that is stifling. If I, a relative unknown, essentially 'powerless' individual not in a public office feels it, imagine the stress on those who know their every word and every action will be overscrutinized, overanalyzed, and overinterpreted by both friend and foe.

One wouldn't want to get 'caught' linking inconsistent thoughts in this stultifying age of applying labels with permanent glue.